Bureaucracy
Administration and central
Bureaucracy and self-government must not be regarded as mutually exclusive systems of administration. In all civilised states they supplement one another, although their relative importance is hardly ever in two instances the same. It is a mistake to suppose that there is no self-government in Prussia, in France, or even in Russia. It is a mistake to suppose that bureaucracy does not play a great part in England. In fact the administration of a civilised state is so serious a task as to demand all the power of bureaucracy and self. government combined. The paid official has, or should have, the advantage in professional knowledge, professional skill, professional discipline, whilst the unpaid citizen has, or should have, the advantage in familiarity with local requirements, in local patriotism, and in freedom from technical prejudice and routine. An ideal system would make the unpaid citizen do as much work for the public as could be got out of him, and ensure his doing it properly by providing official information, supervision, and audit. A certain independence is necessary to make unpaid work attractive to able and honest men. On the other hand some duties can never be efficiently discharged by unpaid officers, because they need a special training and a special skill.
Administrative organisation admits of innumerable variations in detail. A certain similarity may nevertheless be noted in the administrative systems of states which are similar in extent and civilisation. In very small states the administrative system must necessarily have rather a municipal than an imperial character. Thus in the states of ancient Greece and of ancient and mediaeval Italy, we find administrative organisations suited to the wants of a single town (see CITY—ANCIENT, MEDIEVAL). When the state expanded beyond these dimensions a municipal had to be transformed into an imperial administration. The most striking instance of this process is afforded by the history of Rome. But in very large states the imperial and the municipal organisations are distinct from the first. The central administration is from the first contrasted with the local administration. Both, however, are servants and representatives of the state. Both exist in order to carry out its laws. Their separation is due to the necessities of public business. It is qualified by the superior power of the central as compared with that of the local authority, and of the sovereign as compared with both. Yet it is so important that each must be considered by itself.
Central Administration in modern Europe has had its root in the power of the monarch and has grown with the growth of that power. Thus in France the development of the central administration is almost co-extensive with the political history of the nation. In England, before the Conquest, there was hardly anything which could be called a central administration, although the local administration was tolerably complete. After the Conquest the nucleus of a strong administration was created by the Norman kings, who had to maintain their authority at once against a recently conquered people and a lawless feudal nobility.
By the DOMESDAY survey the central government was, for the first time, informed of the population and resources of the kingdom. The taxes were much augmented and the exchequer was organised for the business of collection and management. The circuits of the itinerant justices, at first designed as much for financial as for judicial business, began under Henry I. and were systematised by Henry II. By means of these circuits the central administrative authority was placed in direct contact with the local administrative authorities. Great works of architecture were executed at the royal expense. Mercenary armies were frequently employed. But the administration as yet concerned itself with a few comparatively simple matters. It was still indissolubly blended with the economy of the king’s household. Throughout the Middle Ages public health, public communications, and police in so far as provided for, were in the hands of the local authorities.
The local authorities enforced the many regulations respecting agriculture, manufactures, and trade, which were enacted either by themselves or by parliament. EDUCATION and the RELIEF of the poor were for the most part left to the care of the church. From the accession of the house of Tudor down to our own time the strength and activity of the central administration have constantly grown, but so gradually and irregularly that a summary account of the change is almost impossible. The following are the chief points which call for attention. During the 16th century the central administration is in the hands of the monarch and his privy council, whose power is seen rather in particular arbitrary acts than in a minute official interference with ordinary life. By the political revolution of the 17th century a prime minister depending on the House of Commons and a cabinet are substituted for the king and privy council as heads of the administration. The distinction between the CIVIL LIST (q.v.) and the rest of the public expenditure prepares the way for the ultimate total separation between the royal household and the central administration.
At the same time the establishment, first of a regular navy, then of a regular army, and the growth of commerce and of colonies, involves the creation of new administrative departments. But every addition was made piecemeal, so that the central administration in the last century presented a scene of extraordinary confusion. In the 19th century, especially since the passing of the Reform Act of 1832, the central administration has been almost completely transformed. At the accession of William IV. the civil list was so arranged as to complete the separation between the personal income of the monarch and the other public charges. The Poole LAW Amendment Act of 1834 established the poor law board, since developed into the local government board, a body which supervises and controls the great majority of local authorities. The modern legislation on public health, beginning with the act of 1848 and consolidated by the Public Health Act, 1875, is also en forced by the local government board. The Committee of Council of Education, established in 1839, became in virtue of the Education Act of 1870 an education department controlling the public elementary education of England. The military and naval departments have undergone, and are still undergoing, various modifications.
Administrative and authority
Local character of a system of local administration depends chiefly upon
- the mode in which the country is distributed into administrative areas;
- the constitution of the administrative authorities;
- the functions entrusted to them; and
- their relation to the central administrative authority.
Administrative areas
In modern states it has generally been found advisable to divide the territory into at least three species of administrative areas, the smallest being the TOWNSHIP, PARISH, or COMMUNE, the intermediate being the hundred or UNION or “arrondissement”, and the largest, the COUNTY, province, or DEPARTMENT. The whole territory is thus divided into three systems of areas. But certain parts of the territory, especially towns and cities, differ so much from the rest in requirements and resources that they are usually constituted into special administrative areas. The space covered by these areas may or may not be withdrawn from the general subdivision. Thus many of the larger English cities and towns possess all the attributes of counties, but they are distributed into parishes.
Again, the larger areas may be formed by grouping the smaller areas, or they may have no reference to them. Thus in England the union area has always been made up by grouping a number of poor-law parishes ; but these parishes may be in more than one county, so that the boundaries of the union often intersect those of the county. Again, the union area and the area of a municipal borough may coincide, but generally they have been traced without reference to each other, and a municipal area may contain fragments of two or three poor-law areas. Besides these, many other administrative areas have been created at different times and have not been harmonised with one another. This confusion of areas is, however, almost confined to England, and is being gradually mitigated. In England and elsewhere different methods of division have prevailed in different periods. The county has always remained the largest administrative area ; but the HUNDRED has almost disappeared, whilst the POOR LAW union is quite modern ; and in the lowest range the township has in many instances been succeeded by the MANOR, and this again by the parish, civil or ecclesiastical.
Constitution of the administrative authorities
The constitution of the local authority in each area admits of much variety, but is generally reducible to one of four types ; an assembly of all householders in the area, an assembly of elected representatives, a comparatively small ruling body recruited either by co-optation or by the selection of the supreme government, and a staff of officials paid by, and immediately controlled by, that government. Thus the Anglo-Saxon township and the township of New England had as their authority the assembly of householders, and the same type of authority appears modified by feudal influence in the courts of the mediaeval manor, and modified by ecclesiastical influence in the general vestry of the modern parish. Some thing similar is seen in the village council of eastern Europe and of Asia. But this type of authority is suitable only to the smallest area The second type of authority, the elective assembly, is seen in the English select vestry, board of guardians, and modern municipal and county councils, and generally in the urban communities of the civilised world.
Unlike the popular assembly, it is compatible with an extensive area and with multifarious administrative duties, and as it harmonises with democratic sentiment, it is coming into more general employment. The third type of authority, the exclusive body, was seen in many English municipal corporations before the act of 1835, and in the English county authorities before the act of 1888. Some of the municipal bodies of this class renewed themselves by co-optation. The Quarter Sessions were recruited by the appointment of the crown from a list presented by the lord-lieutenant, and composed of persons having a certain property qualification. The fourth type of authority, the staff of government officials, is almost unknown in England and is not common anywhere. But in many countries the head of the administrative body, and the possessor of all real administrative power, the prefect or mayor, is a government official, and his elective colleagues exist chiefly in order to disguise the fact that there is no real self-government.
The functions entrusted to administrative authorities
As regards the functions of the local authority, these have undergone many changes. In England they originally comprised, besides certain legislative and judicial duties, the duty of maintaining a police, the duty of keeping up public communications, the duty of taking certain precautions for the public health by removal of nuisances, eta, and the duty of enforcing a multitude of regulations as to weights and measures, the quality of goods offered for sale, especially provisions, and other matters connected with manufactures and commerce. A series of statutes culminating in the poor law of Elizabeth passed in 1601 added the function of relieving the poor, formerly left to ecclesiastical or to private charity. The duty of providing for the public health, which had been little more than nominal, has become in our time a great branch of local administration. The duty of providing for elementary education is still more recent. Besides these functions local authorities have acquired, under a number of general or special acts, power to provide almost everything which can minister to the health, decency, comfort, or amusement of a dense population—gas and water works, markets, museums, galleries of art, libraries, parks, gardens, baths, lodging- houses, and burial grounds.
Relation to the central authority
This relation differs widely not only in different states but in the same state at different times, or with respect to different classes of local authority. Thus in England the control of the central authority has usually been less strict than in France. In England there was hardly any effective control of local administrative bodies by a central authority, until the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834. The poor law commission first, and afterwards the local government board, have exercised over the union authorities a pretty complete control. It has been said that the only question with respect to which a board of guardians has any real discretion is that of granting or refusing applications for relief. The municipal corporations on the other band, especially those of the largest boroughs, have retained a real independence.
The central administrative authority may influence the local administration in one or more of the following ways:
- by collecting, preserving, and circulating statistical and other information useful for administrative purposes;
- by enacting rules to guide the local authority;
- by periodical inspection or constant supervision to ensure the observance of these rules;
- by periodical audit of the accounts of the local authority.
The means of enforcing this control are various. The extreme penalty for disobedience is the dissolution of the offending local authority. In England a board of guardians may be dissolved by order of the local government board, but a municipal corporation cannot be dissolved by any merely administrative authority. A lighter penalty is the withholding either altogether or in part of grants of money, ordinarily made by the central to the local authority. Thus a school board in England obtains the government grant only in so far as the education given by it satisfies the education department.
Relation of the Administrative Organisation
(The) relation of the Administrative Organisation (is) to
- the sovereign person or body of persons;
- the individual citizen.
The sovereign in each state will necessarily control the administration, but this will be effected in different ways. Under the older form of constitutional monarchy the monarch made laws by the advice of his parliament and carried on the administration by the help of his council. The ministers were his ministers, and through them he controlled every branch of the administration. At the same time he depended on his parliament for the necessary funds, and his ministers were liable to parliamentary impeachment. Under the later form of constitutional monarchy, the prime minister takes the place of the king and the cabinet takes the place of the privy council.
The prime minister and cabinet owe their power to the support of the majority in the more popular house of the legislature. Thus that house which is virtually sovereign has a direct control over the administration. Most modern republics are organised on the model of constitutional monarchy. In the United States the president is perhaps more influential in the administration than was formerly the king of England. The ministers are his ministers and do not even sit in congress. In France the president takes the place of a modern king of England, the prime minister is the real ruler of the state, and he and his cabinet hold office at the pleasure of the majority in the chamber of deputies. In despotic monarchies the monarch has sole control of the administration, unchecked either by a power of withholding supplies or by a power of impeachment residing in a representative body.
The relation of the administrative system to the individual citizen differs in different countries according to the nature of the authority empowered to decide upon their respective rights and duties. In many despotic states of a rude type administrative and judicial functions are united in the hands of the monarch and the provincial governors. Under this system there can be little protection for the individual citizen. In the despotic states of civilised Europe the administrative and judicial organisations were usually kept distinct, but acts done in the course of administration were placed under a special law administered by special tribunals, and in many cases action could not be taken before these tribunals without the previous sanction of the government. In France this system survived many revolutions and has but recently been modified. It is also found more or less developed in many other continental states.
In England a special administrative law and special administrative tribunals are unknown. Every branch of the public service has its own regulations and discipline, but these affect only its members. Every administrative authority stands in the position of a private person empowered by law to discharge certain special functions. Acts done in the course of administration are on the footing of all other acts. If a policeman uses excessive violence in taking a prisoner to the police station, or if a collector of taxes exceeds his lawful powers, redress is afforded by the ordinary courts of justice applying the same laws and observing the same procedure as in any other case of assault or of extortion. So too the rights and duties of any government department or local authority are determined like those of any private individual. [1]
Resources
Notes
- Robert Harry Inglis, Sir, Dictionary of Political Economy, Vol. 1, 1915
Leave a Reply